Friction and Rolling Analytical Question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem concerning two identical disks rolling up inclines, one with friction and the other frictionless. Participants explore the implications of friction on the maximum height each disk can reach, referencing concepts from rolling motion, torque, and energy conservation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the role of friction in the energy transformations of the disks, questioning how it affects the maximum height reached by each disk. There is discussion about the work done by gravity and friction, and whether friction can do work in this context.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the mechanics of rolling and the nature of static friction, suggesting that friction is necessary for rolling but does not do work in the traditional sense. Others are clarifying their understanding of how energy is conserved differently for each disk.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the definitions and roles of work done by friction and gravity, as well as the assumptions about energy conservation in the presence of friction. Participants are also referencing external resources to aid their understanding.

modulus
Messages
127
Reaction score
3
I found this question in HRW (sixth edition), one of the 'checkpoints' (checkpoint 2, to be precise) in chapter 12 on 'rolling, torque, and angular momentum':

Homework Statement


Disks A and Bare identical and roll across a floor with equal speeds. The disk A roll up an incline, reaching a maximum height h, and the disk B moves up an incline that is identical except that it is frictionless. Is the maximum height reached by disk B greater than, less than, or equal to h?


Homework Equations


Work - Kinetic Energy Theorem
Concept of External Forces and Energy Changes (Potential and Kinetic) in a System
Newton's Second Law for Rotation

The Attempt at a Solution


I assumed the disks to lose all their kinetic energy at the maximum height (no more rotation, and no more translation).
So, for disk A, the (negative) work done by gravity (which comes out to be equal to mgh), and the (positive) work done by friction will equal the change in kinetic energy (which should be equal to 0.5{I[w]^2 + m[v]^2}, the rotational and translational kinetic energy.
For disk B, the equation will be [mgh = rotational + translational kinetic energy].
Because of the term pertaining to friction in A's equation, A's height comes out to be greater.

But, in the sample problem immediately after that, it explains that frictional force cannot do any work on a body rolling smoothly down an incline (what?!). But if this is true, friction would never make any difference to a body's rolling motion, so both should reach the same height...yet, the correct answer is that A will reach a greater height.

How?

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
modulus said:
I found this question in HRW (sixth edition), one of the 'checkpoints' (checkpoint 2, to be precise) in chapter 12 on 'rolling, torque, and angular momentum':

Homework Statement


Disks A and Bare identical and roll across a floor with equal speeds. The disk A roll up an incline, reaching a maximum height h, and the disk B moves up an incline that is identical except that it is frictionless. Is the maximum height reached by disk B greater than, less than, or equal to h?


Homework Equations


Work - Kinetic Energy Theorem
Concept of External Forces and Energy Changes (Potential and Kinetic) in a System
Newton's Second Law for Rotation

The Attempt at a Solution


I assumed the disks to lose all their kinetic energy at the maximum height (no more rotation, and no more translation).
So, for disk A, the (negative) work done by gravity (which comes out to be equal to mgh), and the (positive) work done by friction will equal the change in kinetic energy (which should be equal to 0.5{I[w]^2 + m[v]^2}, the rotational and translational kinetic energy.
For disk B, the equation will be [mgh = rotational + translational kinetic energy].
Because of the term pertaining to friction in A's equation, A's height comes out to be greater.

But, in the sample problem immediately after that, it explains that frictional force cannot do any work on a body rolling smoothly down an incline (what?!). But if this is true, friction would never make any difference to a body's rolling motion, so both should reach the same height...yet, the correct answer is that A will reach a greater height.

How?

Please help.


When you say

"So, for disk A, the (negative) work done by gravity (which comes out to be equal to mgh), and the (positive) work done by friction will equal the change in kinetic energy"

I am not sure why you said one work was positive, and one was negative? Surely the disc stops because it does work against gravity [by going up] and friction will ALWAYS be work against what ever you are try to do. Friction will NEVER do work to help you along - friction opposes all changes.
 
Rolling happens when static friction is great enough to keep the point in contact with ground in momentary rest. The translational speed of the rolling body is equal to the linear speed of the rim. If the body stops, both rotation and translation are stopped. But static friction does not do any work, as there is no displacement for the force.
Without friction, there is no rolling. The disk reaching the slope rotating, will rotate with the original angular velocity, as there is no torque to change it.
 
PeterO said:
Surely the disc stops because it does work against gravity [by going up] and friction will ALWAYS be work against what ever you are try to do. Friction will NEVER do work to help you along - friction opposes all changes.

It is a bit strange to say that the disk does work against gravity. On what does it do work? There is only one thing it is contact with: the slope and as it is fixed to the Earth, the disk does work on Earth.

As for friction to be help or not, think of a heavy load on the plate of a lorry, and the vehicle accelerating. What would happen to the load without friction?

ehild
 
Thank you so much, ehild and PeterO. Your help, along with this amazingly helpful module I found on the net: http://cnx.org/content/m14385/latest/
have clarified my doubts.

Ehild, you wrote:
"Without friction, there is no rolling. The disk reaching the slope rotating, will rotate with the original angular velocity, as there is no torque to change it."
I believe this is with reference to disk B, right? If so, then I've got everything right...thank you so much, again!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
modulus said:
Ehild, you wrote:
"Without friction, there is no rolling. The disk reaching the slope rotating, will rotate with the original angular velocity, as there is no torque to change it."
I believe this is with reference to disk B, right? If so, then I've got everything right...thank you so much, again!

Yes, it refers to disk B. The whole KE of A will transform into PE, but only the translational KE transforms into PE in case of disk B.
When disk A rolls uphill, both its translational and rotational motion decelerates. The force of static friction (Fs) provides a torque that opposes rotation, that means it points upward along the slope, so it is an accelerating force for the translational motion opposite to the component of gravity. Therefore the deceleration is slower than without friction, the disk moves longer and travels a longer distance than disk B.



ehild
 

Attachments

  • diskslope.JPG
    diskslope.JPG
    5.1 KB · Views: 474
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
6K